NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-22485
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
( Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-8539)
that:
1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when it
failed and refused to allow telegrapher/clerk, D. W. DuBois, an additional
day's pay for the work week of April 11 through 17, 1977.
2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate telegrapher/clerk,
D. W. DuBois, an additional day's pay at the guaranteed rate of the Rotating
Extra Board position which he occupied for the week of April 11 through
17, 1977.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, Darrel DuBois, was regularly assigned to the
Rotating Extra Board No. 13 at Thayer, Missouri.
At issue is an interpretation of the guarantee provisions of the
Rotating Extra Board Agreement. That agreement reads in pertinent part:
"(h) - Incumbents of assigned extra board positions will
be paid a minimum of five days for each work week,
Monday through Sunday, and rest days need not be consecutive. If the employe performs service on
five days during his work week, he will be paid for the
days on which no work is available at the pro rata rate
of pay of $25.68 per day, subject to future wageadjustments. Such guarantee will be reduced by $
per day for any day on which employe does not work by
reason of his failure to respond to call."
During the week in question, claimant worked two days at pro rata
rate and one day at time and one half rate. In accordance with his understanding of the guarantee, h
provided five days' minimum. The carrier paid him for one day and a half
or twelve hours which takes into account the overtime pay and amounts to
forty hours pay for the week. In their view, forty hours of pay meets
the guarantee requirement. In so doing, they rely upon the decision in
Award Number 22805 Page 2
Docket Number CL-22485
Public Law Board 405. This Board views that decision as not applicable
to this case. The issue was quite different. In that case, the claimant
had actually worked five days, not three as in this case. He was paid
for five days and one of the days was paid at overtime rates. Since all
five days were not paid at pro rata rates, he claimed an additional day
at that rate. In the decision, reference was made to the fact that
claimant worked 40 hours during the week -- four eight-hour periods and
one period at time and one half rate. The decision stated that the
claimant was paid the minimum of five days during the week and the rule
was satisfied. We agree in those circumstances. The decision did not
treat with the application of overtime. In fact, it ignored it.
Further, it does not comment on the application of the rule when no
service is performed.
The language of the rule is simple and straightforward. It says
that when an employe works less than five days in a week he will be paid
for the days on which no work is available at the pro rata rate. There
is no
reference to
overtime or an hourly application. Under the rule
claimant was entitled to pro rata pay for the two days he was available
but not used. He has received pay for 1 and 1/2 days.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds axed holds;
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway labor
Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein; and ----~_,,
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
~~
n \.,
Claimant will receive pay for four (4) hours or 1/2 day'
S
pay.~-
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: fGLI~ ._
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March 1980.